Gov. Sam Brownback’s School Efficiency Task Force has begun its search for efficiencies with the premise that only 54 percent of total school funding is directed toward classroom instruction. At least that’s the number the task force displayed at its first meeting.

Officials with school districts across the state beg to differ and say they are in compliance with a Kansas statute that establishes a “public policy goal” of directing 65 percent of their funding to the classrooms.

Brownback and his task force also differ with some school officials on what employees and services should count toward the 65 percent goal.

It might be a while before someone decides what the definition of classroom instruction is or will be, but at this point we think the “65 percent” is getting way too much attention.

Yes, the task force was formed on the basis that schools weren’t directing sufficient resources to classroom instruction and that finding efficiencies could change that landscape. But no one should be willing to limit expenditures on instruction to 65 percent if it is possible to do better.

Whether the state can do better, we don’t know. But we should know when the task force — and school officials will have their chance to discuss issues with that group — submits its report.

Task force members should seriously consider advice they received during their first official meeting that school districts could turn some of their functions to the private sector. They also might want to consider recommending that neighboring school districts find ways to share functions in a manner that saves money for all.

Former Topeka Unified School District 501 superintendent Kevin Singer often talked about the savings Shawnee County school districts could realize if they consolidated some of the operations common to all districts. However, he was largely unsuccessful in accomplishing such consolidation or left before his work bore fruit.

Education officials obviously know more than we do about school districts common functions, but purchasing, payroll, food service, special education, maintenance and grounds keeping are among them. Surely districts in this county and others could find some way to cooperate on those services and save money. And if shopping some business, payroll for example, to the private sector saves money, perhaps they could negotiate as a group and strike a better deal.

Brownback has received some criticism for not placing educators on his task force, but it’s obvious he wanted business people, including a handful of accountants, to take a fresh look at school spending. That’s OK, but they should look for ways to get as much of the school funding pie as possible into classroom instruction.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Is those who write Editorials fail to follow journalism rules. One of the most important rules is require two find two indepent sources with same facts. CJ seems to accept anything Governor Brownback says.

Consolidation of school districts would be a great start to saving money and eliminating the duplication of services. Perhaps consolidating the buying power of not only school districts but governmental entities into one consortium would bring the cost of supplies for all down. .

Because I don't understand how it is supposed to save money. Say the state has a paper-shuffler who is paid $35,000. In the private sector, it is generally agreed that equivalent jobs get paid more to compensate for the "lack of security." Looking at this last job classification review that just went through, I believe the average raise given was around 10% (rough estimate) to employees that were below market level. So assuming the average private sector paper shuffler gets 10% more than the public sector shuffler, that would pay the private sector shuffler $38,500.

Everybody knows that the private sector has administrative costs/overhead, and they will want to be compensated for that also. I talked to a person who wrote some contracts for jobs with the federal government and they said they were able to factor in a percentage for overhead. He said it varied by contract but generally, it was 10%. So add 10% of the private sector salary to the job cost. Now we are looking at $42,350 to shuffle papers.

But wait, every one of the conservatives on here promoting privatization will tell you Company X won't be in the business very long if they don't make money. And they will tell you that it is always the consumer that ends up paying. So, if Company X is writing a contract to take over state business, they are going to want to make a profit for doing the paper shuffling. My contract writing acquaintance agreed as much and said the Fed's allowed 10% profit for doing business, so let's assume the same for the state (adjustments for Brownback cronies can be made elsewhere). So that adds an additional 10% to shuffle papers. Now we are up to $46,585 to shuffle the same papers the State was doing for $35,000. But the State has administrative costs/overhead also that aren't shown in the paper shuffler's salary. For the sake of argument, we'll add 10% to State Shuffler to compensate for overhead. Now we are back to $42,350 to do the same job the State does for $35,000.

Now the pro-private sector will say that Company X can do the same job with less shufflers. While that may be true, there's a level of performance expected out of Company X and they know it takes x number of state shufflers to do the job. They won't be reducing shufflers until they are sure they can do the work without them. That won't be reflected in the first contract, and I would be surprised if the next contract isn't written for at least the same amount, if not having an inflation factor added.

" Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison (one of the founding fathers)
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin (one of the founding fathers)

" Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison (one of the founding fathers)
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin (one of the founding fathers)